Talk:Bleeding edge technology
Curious question: How mature must a technology be for it to be regarded as having outgrown the classification, "bleeding edge"?
Usual answer to such a question is, "how long is a piece of string?", but that's not a terribly useful answer. I understand that the length of time a technology is regarded as bleeding edge is contextually calculated, but if there were some performance indicators, % adoption, or level of sophistication that were enumerated in a response to the question, this would be more useful.
For instance, can we regard the use of wiki in a corporate environment as truly "bleeding edge", given the technology has been in development for a period of in excess of a decade, it has achieved wide corporate acknowledgement as an effective knowledge base, and where Wikipedia is itself 4.5 years old?
I thought that bleeding edge means the open end. Like when you are looking at a time frame depecting the process and you finally reach the edge and you see that its end is not closed meaning that there is still stuff to come. In design, this is called to be bleeding into the page. I used to think of it as bleeding into the future with infinite possibilities.
But this was only from my understanding of the expression. It is not something I know as a fact. --Ahmad Alhashemi 10:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My interpretation of this expression was also informed by the design term "bleed." (As far as I know, elements bleed "off" the page, not "onto" or "into" the page, but that's an aside.) I always considered the bleeding edge to mean so close to the edge of the page, it's almost off the page. Since the "edge" would really be technically just arbitrarily close to the edge, the "bleeding edge" would mean at and off the edge (as it does in design.) 18.104.22.168 23:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The design reference is interesting, but the etymology clearly comes from the contrast between "leading edge" and "bleeding edge". Accordingly, in my view, the important element to understanding the expression is to recognize, first, that the technology must be cutting edge, and second, that it exposes the early adopter to risk associated with the adoption. The reference to 'blood' also relates to red ink, metaphorical blood to the technology investor. "Bleed" in design comes from the ink bleeding through or off the page, and is related to "creep" as in "scope creep"... I don't think it has the association with risk or with red ink that the "bleed" in "bleeding edge" does. -Gavin (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. Alpha or earlier release software could be. The important element of the word, in my view, is to distinguish "bleeding" from "leading". So, when the technology, while still advanced, has sufficient support or adoption that there is no longer the extreme risk associated with adoption, it is no longer bleeding edge. -Gavin (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Order of Software Builds.
As per Mozilla, nightlys are considered bleeding edge. It is my understanding that it goes, from start to finish, Bleeding Edge --> Alpha --> Beta --> Release Canidate --> Release Build. -myles797
Bleeding VS Cutting giving a few examples
When the term bleeding edge comes up I know people would like to ask "why not just call it cutting" well usually like the article says bleeding edge is still in the prototype stages and in other words there's only like 2 or 3 in the world and can become a white elephant. the difference is also covered in modern entertainment media such as comics. the modern Iron Man comics where Tony Stark's Iron man's newest armors are still considered cutting edge they can be reproduced rather easily. While in recent issues of the comic Tony's newest rival Ezekiel Staine, son of the villain Obadiah, has modified his body to make his body a living weapon using only human technology, which in that world is considered bleeding tech to humans of the marvel universe. Batman who is a billionaire playboy, uses the latest bleeding tech that seems unconventional for everyday or military situations for his crime fighting. Just wanted to cite those a little.
Now as for beta software it's a rather difficult question because if it's known to run on proven technology, in game sense, such as the havok physics engine and the unreal 3 graphics engine it's considered cutting edge. However if it's something like the game crysis 2 and crytech 3 graphics engine which are totally new and unproven things that would be considered bleeding especially since your computer would need the latest graphics card to just play the thing at the graphics they show onstage.-22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I like comics, but maybe Marvel references are not the most relevant to a wide range of readers. I think you have it right when you ask "why not just call it cutting" edge (or leading edge) instead of bleeding. There is no point using 'bleeding edge' if it means the same thing. It doesn't: the key element is the risk. So I think Betacam, for example, could have been described as "bleeding edge" because it was cutting edge technology that was actually better than VHS but (for a variety of reasons) did not become the standard, and therefore early adopters were left rummaging through the discount bins of their local video store. The same could probably be said of Sony's Minidisc, also a great technology that never really made the cut.
Another good example might be laser eye surgery. When it first became available I would say it was bleeding edge, because there were real risks associated with the procedure and no real data on the long term effects. Ultimately the risks were minimized, and laser eye surgery went from cutting edge to every-day. But if everyone had gone blind a year later (like in the Simpsons episode) it would obviously have been bleeding edge. Widespread adoption of DDT as an insecticide was at the time a bleeding edge decision, where the risks manifested as very serious ecological damage. -Gavin (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and nor is it a repository for vacuous jargon, applied at random to whatever Wikipedia contributors think appropriate. I think it is time to push the envelope of the bleeding edge out of the box, and into the blue sky beyond... Or, more sensibly, time for an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment: Today one of my colleagues used the term "bleeding edge" during a meeting. I was unfamiliar with the term so I quickly Googled it on my iPhone to see what he meant. Wikipedia gave me the answer. Because of this, I don't think this page should be removed. I think it needs to be better, and that we can make it better by citing papers/sources where the term is used to describe certain technologies, and to give examples of "bleeding edge" technology in a separate section. Sdegan (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, this term dates back to the 1980s, and there's a documented reference to it being used in a Computerworld article in 1983. See Random House's Word of The Day, "cutting edge", February 29th, 2000. "Environmental management is an organization that addresses change and manages that change so the DP community can be state of the art without being the 'bleeding edge'" (Computerworld, 1983). So, the February 1994 reference is not correct. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there (I know *you*!!) Here's a sourced example that traces to earlier than the uncited one in the article, yet later than yours; Bleeding edge technology. (Sequoia Systems Inc.) (company profile) Forbes, September 2, 1991 - Alison ❤ 07:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the web wonderful? Here's a citable reference, dating back to March 21st, 1983, in the New York Times: We ended up on the bleeding edge of technology, instead of the leading edge, one computer systems executive at a major bank said sarcastically. tvleavitt (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)